Chelsea Rumours

15 Nov 2025 15:47:00
New sponsor Oracle to be announced. One year deal, and for significantly less than what chelsea were expecting.

This entire debacle has been embarrassing. Egbalis first words once the takeover happened was 'this club was not terribly well managed on the football side, sporting side or promotional side'.

Many on here having been saying for a couple years now (lol) that it was somehow a good thing that we hadn't got a new sponsor, as we'd be making way more money by holding firm and waiting. Just want to see if those posters can eat there words as I said many times the beginning of this new regime will be a case study in failure on how to takeover a club. I don't suppose they will though.

anyway, not all bad, but glad this debacle is finally coming to an end.

15 Nov 2025 19:43:12
Welcome back. Always good to have different views on this site.

15 Nov 2025 22:38:35
I don’t always have the best things to say about the current ownership, but, in this case, a big issue with the club not getting what they viewed as good / expected value from sponsorship has been the ongoing investigation - with companies reluctant to go big until that’s resolved. I’m sure the current regime would have hoped that it would have been resolved by now, but they can’t wait forever.

That investigation is down to problems with / mistakes by the previous ownership, which the current lot could have brushed under the carpet. In the long term they did the right thing, highlighting it at the earliest opportunity.

Is this whole debacle embarrassing? Yes, it absolutely is. Is it the current ownerships fault? No, the blame sits with RA and his ownership.

16 Nov 2025 03:32:50
J, we have all had reason to be critical of the current owners.

Like all fans to a certain extent we are guessing about our respective club’s commercial negotiations.

If it is true that potential sponsors have been reluctant to enter into a long term sponsorship deal because of a potential club sanction then I guess your assertion holds water.

The fact that our current owners self reported the issue and have co-operated fully with the relevant regulatory bodies made me personally believed we would receive a fine and maybe a one window transfer ban at the most. I suppose there is little upside to a sponsor making a longer than one year deal without knowing the outcome of the investigation.

I seem to remember we recently got a very substantial long term shirt sleeve sponsorship deal and I guess last season we did have a sponsor for about our last fifteen games.

16 Nov 2025 06:47:54
I think it’ll be the club deciding on the deal till the end of the season, rather than a long-term one right now.

Just as an example, the sponsorship companies are saying, we’ll give you £40m per season, because of the outstanding charges, otherwise we’d give you £60m. You wouldn’t want to sign a 4-6 year deal, knowing those charges should be resolved with the first of those years. Get the £40m this season, pay the fine during that period, then get a better long-term deal after that.

Additionally, get top four this season and we’re repositioning ourselves as regulars in the UCL, rather than being back in as a one off. That won’t hurt either.

16 Nov 2025 08:05:05
J, you are using the same mathematical logic that I was using for last season.

I except your point about any potential punishment effecting negotiations. This was an issue that I had personally dismissed because I believed any sanction would be relatively minor.

16 Nov 2025 08:47:56
Charges, it's not stopping Man city obtaining sponsorships, this is red herring, let's stop making excuses for our incompetent ownership and commercial dept.

16 Nov 2025 09:36:43
Who owns Man City and who is their sponsor?

16 Nov 2025 10:25:08
J we have multi billionaire owners who are brilliant business people yet they have no clue on moving us forward whether it's to do with sponsorships ir the so called Bridge development.

16 Nov 2025 10:38:54
J, very good point.

Bill, we understandably don’t know the facts, so we are all left guessing but to accuse the owners of “incompetence” on this issue seems harsh to me.

When I look back upon my time as a supporter I have always found a topic that I could criticise all our past owners for. Some of that criticism is and was probably unfair but my guess is all supporters of virtually every club are the same. Can I just add, I did have some criticisms of RA as well.

16 Nov 2025 11:23:44
Bill, The SB development or move to another location will probably cost about £2bn, I would rather they got it right than wrong and on that I’m sure we can agree. I have been critical of our owners for poor communication either directly or via the FAB and this is an area, in my opinion, where they have over promised and under delivered.

They were due to make an internal report public before the start of the season. There may well be good reasons why this hasn’t happened but a very short press release would have updated all the fans.

16 Nov 2025 11:38:44
Tom

That is the ussue, we don't know what's hoing on because us fans get told absolutely nothing.

Thats one thing about this ownership, they live in their ivory tower, doing nothing, saying nothing.

They just seem to like owners of a large nursery company.

16 Nov 2025 14:05:22
Bill, I assume our owners are worse than some and better than others when it comes to fan communication.

I personally would bring back CTV and the old monthly Q&A that used to a good opportunity for us fans to ask questions.

16 Nov 2025 16:41:56
I think some of you are over optimistic about the potential sanctions. There are two seperate investigations one by the FA and the other by the PL. We would be lucky to get away with a financial sanction; there is a real possibility of a points deduction.

16 Nov 2025 16:56:01
I agree Tom but this crowd would never let it happen, like the Glaziers, they are in it for the money and prestige, they could not care less about the fan base, they have made that quite clear with their total lack of communication.

16 Nov 2025 17:34:32
Bill, I’ve lost count of the amount of times I have said we are a business. I have also said many times there is very little wrong with our club being run as a business. I see no comparison, so far, between our owners and the Utd owners.

Over the years we have had many different owners. The Mears family didn’t say anything and the Bates - Harding partnership ended up being a war of words against each other. I can’t remember Roman saying much directly to anyone but his Chairman Bruce Buck was iften good for a self promoting quote.

My point is silence from owners seems like a common theme at our club and probably the vast majority of other clubs.

17 Nov 2025 09:27:35
Tom

As you are probably aware I agree with you about being run as a business albeit a badly run business losing huge amounts of money due yo no FOS for goodness knows how long now and having no plans for extra revenue with a larger stadium, all the owners can do is keep putting ticket prices up to help mediate the problem if losing money.

17 Nov 2025 12:28:51
Bill, I would only be guessing again but just maybe the threat of a club sanction has been the major problem in stopping us getting a FOS sponsor.
I’m not a fan of the “blame” society we live in and without knowing the facts on this particular issue maybe we should defer our judgement.

The SB development was always going to take ages but I will continue to be critical but only about poor communication.

I can’t say I’m an expert on our gross revenues over the last five years and I’m not sure how they compare to our peers. Obviously a larger ground with extra capacity would be good but does that come with huge debt? I assume these are the sort of issues our previous owner and present owner have to consider as well as the potential loss in revenue if we move to a temporary home. I think I will just leave it to them (not going to happen in my lifetime) it gives me a headache!

28 Oct 2025 07:58:57
According to reports from respected journalists this morning, the delay in the SB development report concerns a 44 acre plot potentially being available North of Stamford Bridge. I assume that is Earls Court but I'm not sure.

28 Oct 2025 09:00:49
Tom

First and foremost the ownersxneed to decide what they want to do with SB.

There will always be land somewhere, personally I would move away from the Bridge, it's far to9 restrictive in many ways.

28 Oct 2025 10:00:49
Bill, I assume the the theory is they can’t make a decision about SB until they can see what’s happening with this supposed 44 acre site.

That sounds reasonable to me.

I would prefer a move away from SB but I just think our current owners will choose to redevelop SB.

28 Oct 2025 11:24:46
If that's what they are looking to do, why worry about land elsewhere.

It just seems to me that they want to put this into the long grass.

Next we will hear that they are looking for Andy's housrle to be knocked down once he has left.

28 Oct 2025 11:47:03
Because they have to at least be seen to be looking carefully at all the options.

28 Oct 2025 12:37:28
I just think that the owners have been in charge long enough now to be in a position to ar least tell us where they are along their thought process.

28 Oct 2025 13:12:56
Tom, I'm sure you are aware that the last possible piece of land available for development to accomodate a project of this size is Earls Court, there is simply nothing else available. The current owners of that site will have the answer to their submitted planning application, which does NOT contain a stadium, later this year, if it is granted that will end any hope of us moving away from Stamford Bridge. The hope from
BlueCo is that planning will be rejected and a potential deal to buy that site could be made which would include extensive housing as well as a stadium, the london mayor is in support of this so there is a chance it could happen. That said, even if Blue. Co were able to buy the land and gain planning permission for a stadium it would then have to go to the Chelsea Pitch Owners to decide if they would allow it to happen and after Roman wanted to buy Battersea power station only for the CPO to object to everything I wouldn't be over confident in that happening! This planning decision from the current owners of Earls Court is a monumental moment in our history because if it is granted we, Chelsea FC, will have no choice other than to stay at Stamford Bridge.

It is very easy to critisise Blue. Co but what else can they do but wait for that planning decision? In fact they have, in the meantime, been very proactive in buying the land next to Stamford Bridge which is currently home to a number of war vets as a contingency plan with a view to redeveloping Stamford Bridge. Either way this whole matter is going to take upwards of 7 or 8 years and probably closer to 15 years to come to fruition as Roman found out when he first looked at developing the ground/ moving some 20 years ago. I hope this all helps.

28 Oct 2025 15:42:05
RPD, as I said I assume the reference to a 44 acre site is Earls Court but then why not just say “Earle’s Court? ”

RPD, that’s not what happened to the proposed Battersea Power station development. Roman just got outbid.

I also understand why RA wanted the CPO to agree to any potential move but one thing stopped it, someone bought loads of CPO shares just before the vote and that cause accusations of vote rigging and understandably begged the question why would someone want to rig a vote. The meeting was a farce and if remember correctly the chairman resigned.

Blue Co can be a new stadium for football with the permission of the CPO but it can’t without approval use the name CFC. Of course that’s never going to happen. I would have a large fortune on the CPO agreeing to a move to a nearby site.

29 Oct 2025 07:49:24
Tom, the CPO issues were at the same time as Roman was bidding on Battersea, he got totally pissed of with them and withdrew his interest.

29 Oct 2025 09:13:57
I thought that the CPO was originally set up by KB to protect the club from ever losing the ground again. Not sure where protecting the name of the club should owners wish to move out if SB or indeed stopping naming rights on the stadium.

It seems that the CPO over time has evolved into being a barrier for owners trying to move the club forward and are turning themselves into an enemy rather than a protector.

Also if we do move away from SB, who owns the land?

29 Oct 2025 10:51:52
Let’s just correct a few things about RA, Battersea and the CPO.

RA was outbid for the Battersea site by I believe a Malaysian entity. It was some time after that when RA asked the CPO to give up its rights that were set up by KB protect the club name and location plus any development on the SB site other than a Football Club.

It was assumed by many CPO members that an attempt was being made by “some persons” rig a vote that would give back the ground and naming rights to RA. The argument put forward by many was that the CPO were not given sufficient assurances that either RA or anyone person or company be might sell the club to wouldn’t redevelop a valuable site for housing.

That meeting turned into a farce in my opinion with the chairman resigning (having been a RA proposal supporter) and the vote going against RA. In reflection and with the benefit of hindsight I do not understand to this day why RA and his team could not give the necessary assurances to satisfy an element of the CPO.

The CPO in my opinion have generally been nothing more than concerned that either football continues to be played at SB or somewhere nearby. They will not allow the clubs name to be used if owners want to move the club (like Wimbledon) to a completely different area of the country.

29 Oct 2025 18:42:38
Tom

We we did move to Earls Court, would the CPO want the same protection also if we did move, who gets the SB funds from the sale?

29 Oct 2025 20:36:53
Bill, I can’t remember the exact articles of the CPO but if I remember correctly those articles would cease when they agree to move to another ground. They only apply to the SB site. I’m sure the same would apply to the CFC name.

29 Oct 2025 20:39:30
Sorry, as far as any funds due from the sale would remain with the club as part of any agreement. If I remember correctly the CPO are a not for profit organisation.

My guess is the club would have to buy back the CPO shares at an agreed price.

30 Oct 2025 16:56:40
Thank you Tom.

19 Oct 2025 20:47:57
Hi Ed,
I'm a massive fan of Morgan Rogers and I would love him at Chelsea, is there any interest should he be attainable.

{Ed001's Note - there was interest in the summer, the interest remains with a view to next summer. Possibly explains the odd loan of Buonanotte as an interim.}

20 Oct 2025 20:37:49
Can't say I've seen too much of hi to be honest, what do you think of him Ed?

{Ed001's Note - I like him a lot, his ability to pick up the ball and power forward, plus line breaking passes and movement added to his shooting power gives him a bit of a Gerrard vibe about him.}

21 Oct 2025 22:24:24
Cheers Ed, that's good to know!

{Ed001's Note - very welcome mate.}

09 Oct 2025 18:44:41
Riyadh Air begin their operations with flights to London Heathrow on 26th October. Some have speculated that they will be our FOS sponsors. If that is so, presumably there will be an announcement soon. Alternatively, the commercial department have screwed things up and that is why someone got the heave ho. Let's hope it's the former.

09 Oct 2025 19:19:03
Fingers crossed it’s also the amount being rumoured as well, although £65m per season seems high to me.

10 Oct 2025 11:26:43
Can only hope it happens. Do either of you know where the rumour/ leak came from about Riyadh Air being out potential FOS and therefore how reliable the info might be?

10 Oct 2025 13:40:37
JBS, from the general press including Matt Law who is usually pretty good with all things Chelsea. I also seem to remember Ormstein mentioning it.

11 Oct 2025 10:13:27
Thanks Tom. Matt Law porbably is more reliable than most and if also mentioned by Ornstein there's a good change it's true. I am sure ED002 - still much missed of course - would have known as he seemed to have top notch inside track info on almost all things CFC and especiallt financial matters. Don't know if any of the others Eds have any info here?

12 Oct 2025 13:03:00
Hope your all correct in the FOS however with just two weeks away you would think more detail would have leaked out by now, let's how it's Ridyah flying with our logo and not pigs flying.

12 Oct 2025 16:58:03
From What I gather and this is only media reports. There launch date has been delayed several times already because the airline is awaiting delivery of Dreamliner’s. ✈️🛩️

I personally wouldn’t have a clue how true all these rumours are but I hope they turn into fact.

I would not a massive fan of a restrictive naming rights deal if one existed.

13 Oct 2025 10:13:07
It's officially announced, Rudyard are pur new sponsors over £40mil per seasonal.

19 Oct 2025 20:46:32
I actually like our shirts without a sponsor.

25 Sep 2025 15:16:26
Matt Law reporting that Enzo Maresca was very upset not to have been backed in his pusuit of a new centre back and striker following the injuries to Colwill and Delap. Is Matt ITK at Chelsea? He also reports the powers to be are not happy with Maresca going public on the above? Usual paper talk or is something bubbling under the surface?
Also, anyone read King Carlo's latest book? His relationship with Roman and how Roman micro managed him and his team? Quite a read.

25 Sep 2025 16:06:58
I posted something similar a couple of days ago RPD but also included Maresca also wanted a GK.

He was let down by the SD's who seem to be obsessed with churning wingers.

I would not be surprised if all parties parted company before the end of the season.

Hopefully with the financial constraints imposed by the corrupt organisation that is EUFA, we might see a stable playing squad for the next couple of seasons.

I kept on about a FOS where we have lost several millions and even if and it's a big if, we do get a FOS, the first couple of seasons will just be recouping money to cover the previous losses.

25 Sep 2025 19:19:57
Bill, we all hope that a FOS sponsorship deal happens soon. If it is who most people think it is and if it’s close to the amounts being mentioned then the delay will probably be mathematically worth the wait.

RPD, Matt Law is a good journalist as far as they go. He always had a good insight into everything Chelsea. It was rumoured he was very good mates with Gary Cahill and one or two other players. Strangely his info lately hasn’t been as accurate as in previous years but his views are always to be respected.
All managers want players and it’s understandable that he wanted a CH and CF but the club sometimes has to look at the bigger picture. We will be getting a striker from Strasbourg next season, so there is little point in blocking his path. A seasoned CH would have been a good shout but maybe they have faith in Fofana (still not sure) and Colwill. I would have personally kept Veiga for the season but maybe bridges were burnt.

25 Sep 2025 20:02:31
Tom

There are also more and more little digs by Maresca in his recent press conferences.

25 Sep 2025 21:04:35
Bill, honestly mate I must listen to different press conferences. I think he has made just a few mistakes in press conferences but he is generally very respectful of everyone including the club, the SD’s and the owners.

As I’ve said, I’m sure he would have liked another CH and CF when Colwill and Delap got injured. In my opinion football managers manage in the moment and have very little understanding of any bigger picture.

26 Sep 2025 09:12:19
Tom

Coaches don't need a bigger picture, their job is to coach the team and provide the SD's with what's needed to be successful.

They are no longer managers, just coaches, hence why clubs now have SD's to bring in/ let ho of players.

26 Sep 2025 09:46:38
Thanks Tom for the update on Matt Law. It would be disasterous if Maresca left and yet another change was made. We need a little bit of stability now and after all, Maresca did what his recent predecessors couldn't achieve and that was champions league football and trophies.

26 Sep 2025 11:28:09
RPD, there is an argument that with the player investments the owners have made that winning cups and CL qualification was a minimum achievement. I personally believe EM overachieved in his first season as our manager and his first season as a premiership manager.

Bill, that’s my point. Managers focus from game to game and a singular season. That to a certain extent is understandable because they can be sacked or called to be sacked by some fans after just a few bad results. Remember this season we had one poster saying he should be sacked after our opening day draw against Palace.

Owners and SD’s tend to take a slightly longer term view on player recruitment. Especially at our club like ours.

26 Sep 2025 19:45:30
Tom

Just wondering if there is a long term view as you say, why is there such a high churn of playing staff?

26 Sep 2025 19:56:01
Bill, you know my view on this subject. I see us as a trading club who buy young players, increase there value and then sell them on.

So, my view is that the so called “churn” will continue under our current ownership.

Any stability will just be for about 3-4 years for most players.

I may well end up being wrong. It’s just my opinion!

27 Sep 2025 07:49:43
Just wondering where the long term view is then Tom.

27 Sep 2025 09:52:27
A managers is game to game (as they keep in telling us) and for a singular season (if there lucky) and im guessing OUR club is about 3-4 years or when a players value is sufficient to sell.

27 Sep 2025 13:31:24
But that is not a long term view Tom, nowhere near.

27 Sep 2025 14:36:43
Well it’s three or four times longer than a managers!

30 Sep 2025 19:31:58
No matter what maresca wanted, his inverted full backs is not going to work. Wingers are left alone, midfield is deep.

30 Sep 2025 22:40:26
I thought that was part of the plan. Wingers left one on one and the inverted full back making the extra midfielder. I’m not a massive and I certain don’t like it being used for every game.